Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1288 (MP)

Surendra Nath Gupta v. Union of India

2005-12-15

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
ORDER 1. Petitioner is a 82 years old senior citizen and has filed this petition being aggrieved by the action of the Union of India in not granting him freedom fighters pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the scheme"). Petitioner contends that he is a freedom fighter and he i" receiving freedom fighters pension from the State Government. He applied for grant of pension under the M.P. Swatantrata Senani Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, the State Government initially did not forward the case to the Union of India. Finally, the matter was forwarded to the Government of India by the state Government but the claim has been rejected. Vide orders, Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2, petitioner has been informed that his case has not been forwarded by the State Government and there is no proof with regard to the fact that he has undergone imprisonment for six months or more during the freedom movement and on that ground the application has been rejected. 2. Shri Pradeep K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once under the same scheme, pension is granted by the State Government and when the State Government has forwarded the case to the Union of India, the Union of India cannot refuse grant of pension on the ground that there is no proof of undergoing imprisonment. Inviting my attention to judgment passed by this Court in WP No.675 of 1995 [Parasram Pande v. Union of India] and various others cases including the case of Narmadeshwar Sahai Verma v. State of M.P. [WP No. 12 of 2001], the learned counsel argues that refusal to grant freedom fighters pension is unsustainable. 3. Respondent No.2, State of Madhya Pradesh filed return and it is stated in the return by them that the petitioner is in receipt of Samman Nidhi from the State Government. According to the State Government, the application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the Collector, Gwalior to the Union of India. Annexure R-1 dated 29th August 1998 is the letter written by the Collector, Gwalior to forward the case of the petitioner to the State Government and subsequently to the Government of India. According to the State Government, they have granted pension to the petitioner after being satisfied with regard to his claim made. Annexure R-1 dated 29th August 1998 is the letter written by the Collector, Gwalior to forward the case of the petitioner to the State Government and subsequently to the Government of India. According to the State Government, they have granted pension to the petitioner after being satisfied with regard to his claim made. However, Shri V. K. Shrama, learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that on enquiry it was found that claim of the petitioner is not forwarded by the competent authority and there is no proof of the fact that he has undergone imprisonment for six months or more. Necessary certificates and documents for the imprisonment undergone in the jail have not been produced, and therefore, it is argued that the application has been rightly rejected. As far as reliance placed on the aforesaid judgments by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, Shri Sharma argued that in the case of Parasram Pandey (supra), Union of India has filed LPA, which is pending consideration before the competent Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute with regard to factual aspect of the matter inasmuch as pension under the same scheme has been granted to the petitioner by the State Government. Similar arguments were advanced by the Union of India in the case of Hargovind Nayak v. Union of India and another [WP No. 8588 of 2003 decided on 18.8.2005] and it was so observed by this Court in the aforesaid case as under: ··.......The question of granting freedom fighters pension under the State Government scheme and rejection of the claim by the Union of India once the pension is being granted by the State Government has been considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Parasram Pande (supra) and in paras 4 and 5 it has been observed by the learned Judge is as under: (4) It is strange that once the State Government has issued certificate and recognized the petitioner as freedom fighter vide Annexure P-1 on 10.6.1994, no other certificate was required to be produced by the petitioner. The respondent without going through the documents has rejected the application on a very technical ground that the certificates filed by petitioner are not proper. The respondent without going through the documents has rejected the application on a very technical ground that the certificates filed by petitioner are not proper. The Rules framed by Madhya Pradesh Government for grant of freedom fighter pension are identical with that of scheme framed by the Central Government. Once under the same scheme petitioner has been affirmed as freedom fighter by the State Government there was no reason for Central Government to reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension. (5) The purpose of the scheme to grant pension to freedom fighters shall be frustrated if the freedom fighters are asked to knock the, doors of the Court again and again on account of unreasoned order. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension as freedom fighter is on a very technical ground. Infect, once the order granting pension recognizing the petitioner as freedom fighter was passed by the State Government, no other document was required to prove that the petitioner is a freedom fighter. The document, Annexure P-1, itself was sufficient to grant freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner. The respondent has also not filed the return to the petition to explain their stand. (emphasis supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid that the rules framed by the M. P. Government are identical to that framed by the Central Government and under the same scheme petitioner has been granted pension by the State Government and there is no reason why Central Government should reject his claim. (emphasis supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid that the rules framed by the M. P. Government are identical to that framed by the Central Government and under the same scheme petitioner has been granted pension by the State Government and there is no reason why Central Government should reject his claim. Even the Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Valusamy v. The Government of India and another reported in AIR 2000 Madras 42 has held that once the person concerned was getting pension from the State Government, it was sufficient to recognize his activities as freedom fighter and Central Government cannot thereafter reject his claim......The judgment relied upon by Shri V.K. Sharma in the case of Charan Singh is clearly distinguishable, that was a case where the freedom fighter was found to be ineligible as he did not fulfill certain criteria for grant of pensionary benefit and finding that minimum eligibility condition are not being fulfilled orders were passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting his claim which was affirmed by the Division Bench that was not a case where pension was granted by the State Government and rejected by the Government of India the said case is clearly distinguishable. The present case is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case of Parasram Pande (supra) by this Court, so also by K.S. Valusamy (supra) of the Madras High Court. Once, the State Government has accorded benefit to the person concerned. Central Government under the same scheme cannot refuse the benefit. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principle and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no reason why pension be not directed to be granted to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondent/Union of India is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and take action to award freedom fighter pension to the petitioner from the date it has become due to him keeping in view the award of pension already granted by the State Government. Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.